Poll: Should We Execute Our Own Generals?

[Graustein]

Ooh ooh! Pick me, I know the answer to this one!
Australia in Vietnam.
Australia in East Timor.
Australia in Iraq.
Australia in Afghanistan.

I don't think we count, we're the anomaly

 

[Khedive Rex]

Let me ask you then, whom still abides by the Geneva convention and reglarly goes to war?

Let me ask you. What do we gain by blowing off the Geneva Conventions and torturing 90% civilians, 10% cannon fodder for information?

The Geneva conventions are the law. If your suggesting we ignore them, the burden of proof is on you to show why they are bad. Not on us.

Who's law? I'm not asking for proof that they're worth it. But at this point abiding by the Geneva covnention is on par with playing king of the hill with only your hands while everyone else has pointy sticks. We'll lose, and noone will come to our aid when we call them cheaters. Since the cold war we have been doing nothing but proving words are useless and action is what counts. I'm not saying it's a bad "law", but when was the last time one of the coutnries named who plays by "the rules" went to war with someone who didn't?

First of all, are you seriously suggesting that failure to torture civilians will result in the United States losing a war with rag-tag guerilla terrorist groups?! How, may I ask, do you imagine that ending going? A group of 200,000 (and I'm being chairtable) with maybe a 100,000 sympathizers armed with what they could buy off the black market with limited funds storms Washington DC and conquers a country of 300,000,000 containing more than 2/3rds of the world's fire arms in civilian hands?

Now, alternately if you are suggesting we can lose a war with a terrorist organization by simply not conquering them, I would say it's coincedental you brought up the cold war in your response. Soviet Russia was a force to combat the United States at the prime of it's power and don't pretend it wasn't. The "Red Scare" happened because Soviet Russia was looming like an all-powerful juggernaut.

They invaded Afghanistan. They used torture. They "broke the rules and picked up a pointed stick." They got their asses handed to them.

If you are suggesting that merely playing at the same level your enemies are willing to stoop to means you will win you are quite wrong. Torturing civilians didn't help Russia because civilians don't know anything useful. The technique doesn't aid the war effort in anyway and it costs American tax-payer dollars to keep these civilians in prison. In the mean time,

If violating the Geneva Conventions is illegal by UN treaties;

If violating the Geneva Conventions does not provide us with worthwhile information from our torturees;

If violating the Geneva Conventions does not gaurantee us victory or even make it more likely;

Then what rationale is there to violate the Geneva Conventions? Are you seriously arguing we should ignore laws about human rights because "It's the hip thing to do"?

 

[Brett Alex]

When was the last time your country was attacked by terrorists three times in one day? When was the last time they killed men women and children in your country and didn't give a shit? The warriros aren't playing by the rules anymore. There are NO LAWS to killing a man. The Geneva convention is nothing mroe nowadays then a code everyone going to war ignores. Rooting out terrists and eliminating them is genocide. Pure and simple. And if you have to turn a country into radio actvie glass to get the job done, then that's what it takes some times.

I don't know about day, but night? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings] Or Mid afternoon? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Australian_embassy_bombing] Or night [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings] again?

The fact that you aren't turning the country into radioactive glass is the price you pay for being the good guys. Its sad but true. If you don't then what right do you have to judge that your better? What moral high ground can you stand on?

None.
You can't stand on anything. If thats what it takes to destroy them, if you honestly believe thats the only way you can do it, then well done.

You've become them. Was it worth it?

EDIT: And terrorists aren't signatories on the convention. We, on the other hand, are.

 

[Beowulf DW]

For torturing POWs? Why? The opposition is doing it to us and there's no way of stopping it. Geneva convention was shirked off years ago, by about 2003 we were the only ones still playing by the rules.
To quote Snake, "War, has changed."

THANK YOU, Necroswanson. I HATE being the good guys. The bad guys walk all over us and treat us like shit, but if we start responding in kind, WE become the bad guys! WHAT THE FUCK! How is that fair?

Hell, I think we should just Neutron Bomb the fuckers and be done with them.

You're joking right?

Like actually joking like: "ha ha I joked that we should commit genocide on an entire society 'cause that would be easier and not suck, ha ha how harmless and not serious was I being just then"

I really hope you were joking.

When was the last time your country was attacked by terrorists three times in one day? When was the last time they killed men women and children in your country and didn't give a shit? The warriros aren't playing by the rules anymore. There are NO LAWS to killing a man. The Geneva convention is nothing mroe nowadays then a code everyone going to war ignores. Rooting out terrists and eliminating them is genocide. Pure and simple. And if you have to turn a country into radio actvie glass to get the job done, then that's what it takes some times.

By that logic, we can ignore the Constitution. The Bush administration would've done exactly that, if they could have gotten away with it.

Germany and Japan didn't follow the rules, we (the Allies) stuck to those rules a bit more closely and we still won.

Rooting out terrorists is not genocide because terrorists are not a race or culture.

No country should abandon the principles it was founded on just to win a war.

 

[Brett Alex]

You've become them. Was it worth it?

I never said I was a "good" guy. Everyone is an extremist on one front or another. Congratulations, you know mine.
I've beleived for a long time that the only way to defeat an enemy is to dominate them. That feeling was only exhacerbated (sp?) when Bush declared victory, what, 3, four years ago? And yet we're still there. What we are doing, is slow progress. So slow in fact that every stride forward is met with another tride back.

Ok, nice work. So don't cry foul when you get bitten. You've got no grounds to justify with September 11 if you would have done the same thing. You've got no grounds to justify anything.

Do you actually know how most terrorist groups get defeated? Domination, funnily enough, usually only increases their dedication. Most terrorist groups fall apart when
a) They no longer have a cause to fight for.
b) They lose support for their cause.

If you truly wanted to dominate them, you would have to do what Darth Mobius jokingly (I really hope) suggested and glass the place. One country at a time. And if you seriously consider that then, wow... I don't know what I'd have to say.

 

[Khedive Rex]

I agree that torturing civillian POWs is wrong, but focusing on the guys doing it, is just focusing your attention on the wrogn problem.... And yes, the Geneva convention can suck it dry.

Alright, we have some progress.

You admit that torturing civillian POW's is wrong and completely unarguable. But you suggest that ignoring the issue is the most appropriate way to prevent it from happening.

Once again, we disagree. If something is wrong, you end it. If people have broken laws, you send them to prison. Why? Because the United States is not composed of three people in a backroom somewhere.

The assumption that we are unable to deal with the issue of simple legal due process while also running a war effort is ridiculous. We have more than one set of eyes to set to each issue. Actually we have about 600,000,000 million eyes. If something is (as you admit) wrong, then special concessions do not have to be made in order to deal with it. Special concessions have to be made to institute a policy of ignoring it.

If these acts are unlawfull not usefull and immoral, why should we as a government make special rules making it all okay when it is far easier not to alter the system and not doing so will result in the cessision of an act which is unlawfull not usefull and immoral?

Please explain.

 

[The Wooster]

@Armitage: An enemy is not defeated when it refuses to fight, it is defeated when it cannot fight.

That line of thinking worked brilliantly on the Germans after the first world war.

 

[Brett Alex]

@Armitage: An enemy is not defeated when it refuses to fight, it is defeated when it cannot fight.

So we execute every man, woman and child involved in some way with terrorism? Do you not see the logical flaw there? Every death is going to make you a new enemy.

A terrorist insurgency is not a country. It does not have an economy or government or people to be responsible to. You cannot defeat it conventionally.

Even if somehow you 'dominated' every single terrorist, person that might become a terrorist and person that looks like a terrorist (and all their children, and their children's children of course) in the world, do you think your own people would be happy with you? Do you think everyone on your side would be happy with the wholesale slaughter you've committed? Isn't there a chance they would form a resistance against you? You've gone far enough already, kill them too. Kill anyone who disagrees killing them. And anyone who disagrees with killing them.

If you abandon your principles when times are tough, why have principles in the first place. Why draw any moral distinctions. Lets have anarchy.

 

[Fire Daemon]

War is fought on a different set of morals to what governs our day to day life. In day to day life you don't have the lives of hundreds, thousands even under your control. However in a war you do and any General worth his salt will try his hardest to make sure that as many of his men live and that they will complete their objective. If torturing POW helps the General to save lives and win the war then so be it. Thats what he needs to do and thats what he will do. No half decent General will let his own men die, needlessly, because he is too afraid to hurt the enemy.

Yes, this does make the man a monster and yes it does make him a criminal but at the end of the day it also makes him a good General who did his job. So no, he should not be put on Trial for his action. You cannot force a man to fight in a war and then criticise him when he is forced to kill. War does not work like that.

Of course if a General goes out of his way to torture and kill civilians because of racism and hate instead of assisting the war effort then he should be put on trial. Killing thousands of Innocents in a war for no other reason then hate is the same as killing a single person in peacetime for no other reason then hate. They should both be trialled as criminals.

 

[Graustein]

If torturing POW helps the General to save lives and win the war then so be it.

I'm trying and failing to come up with a scenario in which that could possibly be the case.

 

[Brett Alex]

Well, Necroswanson seems to know me well enough to by now to know that when I say Neutron Bomb, I MEAN Neutron Bomb. Glassing is Hydrogen bomb. A Neutron Bomb leaves the infrastructure intact, allowing you to walk in and and capture the oil fields and other important structures UNDAMAGED!

Yes, I DO support Genocide, but only when the enemy supports genocide of US!

Would you press the button? Could you live the consequences? Could you drag the bodies out of the infrastructure to get to your oh so precious oil?

Would you speak to the millions of relatives of those you killed? Would you justify your actions by saying "America! APPLE PIE! FREEDOM!" to the aforementioned relatives who are US citizens? Could you read a list of all the dead children and their hopes and dreams?

Could you do all that, and still sleep at night?

 

[Eyclonus]

A point I would like to raise is that torture rarely is applied properly to the subject in such a way to gain information. The whole point of torture is too convince the prisoner that the most beneficial path is to divulge what they know. Before someone argues about the "Most beneficial" part, I am pointing out this includes the individuals own beliefs and value system.
Torture often fails because under particular conditions because the prisoner comes to believe the information their being fed, and will make up extravagant lies to conform to what the interrogating party is asking.

Finally Terrorists aren't technically party to the coverage extended to POWs in the Geneva convention, however Iraqi soldiers are, by further extension neither are PMCs legal to employ, nor are they able to receive rights, due to Protocol I disqualifying them from the Third Geneva Convention.

 

[Khedive Rex]

I agree that torturing civillian POWs is wrong, but focusing on the guys doing it, is just focusing your attention on the wrogn problem.... And yes, the Geneva convention can suck it dry.

Please explain.

The way I see it as far as it goes, is we're going to find the, "Planet of the Apes" quote theory. Where there is one, there is another, and another. If one soldier, no matter what rank, has it in him to do it, then no matter whom we put in charge of the POWs, there's a high chance it will continue. It's the slippery slope and trickle down theories all over again. The act, will beget the act regardless of whom is there. That's a very pessimistic view, but that's all we can assume for now.

So your bottom line is "No one can be trusted. Everyone will torture no matter what laws are in place. People are essentially barbaric. What are we supposed to do about it?" Is this correct?

I would counter by asking you if there are any local police who do not in fact bludgeon their witnesses until they confess? If the answer is "yes" then your theory is wrong; someone, somewhere will obey the law above their own intincts. If the answer is "no" than what are these officiers policing against exactly?

If you propose that all of society will ignore laws they disagree with, as if in civil revolt, all the time every time; then what precisely is the point of government? John Locke says the key reason to enter a government system is the preservation of preperty, which you suggest is impossible for any government to deliver on.

Once more, we find ourselves in disagreement. Perhaps on a basic level those in charge will feel intitled to torture, however, the enforcement of the law and the reinforcement of seeing the guy who tried it before him get 20 years in jail, will cool his temper. On the other hand, not enforcing the law and not punishing it's transgressors can only result in repeat offenses.

 

[The Wooster]

@Armitage: An enemy is not defeated when it refuses to fight, it is defeated when it cannot fight.

That line of thinking worked brilliantly on the Germans after the first world war.

Actually, no. We DIDN'T fight that way in World War One. We fought that way in World War Two. Complete domination of their military was NOT the final result or goal of World War One, and it ended up DIRECTLY CAUSING World War Two.

The Treaty Of Versailles was exactly that. It was designed to stop Germany from recovering from the first world war and to prevent them from instigating another. It worked out wonderfully.

 

[Alex_P]

Yes, I DO support Genocide, but only when the enemy supports genocide of US!

So, if a country has something like, say, 100 or 1000 people in it who are actively involved in some kind of "genocide" plan against the US, what are you gonna do? Nuke the whole place?

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

@Darth: Exactly. We're not fighting a war. We're staving off our own genocide.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

-- Alex

 

[Brett Alex]

Yes, I believe I could. Joseph Stalin said it best:
One death is a tragedy, One million is a statistic.
Furthermore, I know that if the situations were reversed, they would have nuked us back in the '70s. We have showed compassion and restraint by not retaliating since they first attacked us back then, but I am tired of turning the other cheek. I have run out of cheeks to turn. This used to be about Israel and the Jews, now it is much more personal. They seek to destroy us, not just our lifestyle, not just our government, but each one of us, individually! If they want us dead, they can try to crawl out of the cinders and charred wreckage that used to be their homes to come and get me!

Yes, because Joseph Stalin is an exemplary man who we should all aspire to be like. Forget kindness and tolerance, I think the youth of today need a bit more Stalin in their lives.[/sarcasm]

You have kid don't you?
Is it fair that your kid dies because of what you believe?

And do you honestly believe that every man woman and child in [insert place here -who are you being xenophobic towards by the way, Eye-rack? Or just any old A-rab? Or just anyone without the right skin tone?] actually wants you, you personally, dead?

Have you ever met a muslim? Did he try and rip your jugular out with his teeth? Because that seems to be the picture you paint of them.

Oh and could you please elaborate on which part of the '70s you were referring to?

EDIT: And while your at it why not try some Stalin Energy Drink: 'For when shooting someone and sending their family to the gulag doesn't go far enough.'

 

[Jamanticus]

Yes, I believe I could. Joseph Stalin said it best:

One death is a tragedy, One million is a statistic.

Furthermore, I know that if the situations were reversed, they would have nuked us back in the '70s. We have showed compassion and restraint by not retaliating since they first attacked us back then, but I am tired of turning the other cheek. I have run out of cheeks to turn. This used to be about Israel and the Jews, now it is much more personal. They seek to destroy us, not just our lifestyle, not just our government, but each one of us, individually! If they want us dead, they can try to crawl out of the cinders and charred wreckage that used to be their homes to come and get me!

Despite my inclination to disagree with that argument, I say that you spoke insightfully and truly- I agree, in short.

The problem is, how can we get rid of all of the terrorists? I suppose the bigger problem is this: how can we get rid of the ideology of terrorism so that there won't be any more terrorists?

 

[Alex_P]

"A nation...consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individual's morals are situational, that individual is without morals. If a nation's laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation.

Are you really so scared of terrorists that you'll dismantle the structures that made America what it is? If you are, you let the terrorists win. Because that is exactly, specifically, his goal, his only goal: to frighten you into surrendering the rule of law. That's why they call him 'terrorist.' He uses terrifying threats to induce you to degrade your own society.

It's based on the same glitch in human psychology that allows people to believe they can win the lottery. Statistically, almost nobody ever wins the lottery. Statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen."

- William Gibson, "Spook Country"

War is terrible, and turns soldiers into monsters. It is an insane cruelty that the people they sign on to protect often hate them for it. Perhaps this motivates them to take out their frustrations on enemies in the field. This makes them the monsters their critics want them to be. If they are victims for giving in to that impulse, then perhaps it is also simply another terrible aspect of war that they should, and must, be punished for doing so.

It's not about law, it's about culture.

War has always been a part of life. If we can't contain war within the same general moral boundaries that define our culture, it'll ruin us. This is particular important in the modern age, since our techonology makes great devastation possible. Cultural limits on warfare are all we have left.

Moreover, war is a force that corrupts and retards society. Countries that go mad with war destroy their history, silence their conscience, and abandon their whole identities. Nobody's going to nuke the world anytime soon. But there is always a danger that we'll destroy ourselves from within, that we'll piss away all the good things we've accomplished out of fear and anger. Terrorism is all about promoting that reaction.

-- Alex

 

[Fire Daemon]

If torturing POW helps the General to save lives and win the war then so be it.

I'm trying and failing to come up with a scenario in which that could possibly be the case.

I can think of many. "Where the road side bombs are hidden" "Where a munitions store is hidden" "Where Nuclear Weapons are hidden" Hell where anything is hidden really. If you can find where the enemy gets his weapons from or from where he plans on attacking you then you gain an advantage in the war.